Systematic review assessing the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes for venous leg ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A variety of instruments have been used to assess outcomes for patients with venous leg ulcers. This study sought to identify, evaluate and recommend the most appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for English-speaking patients with venous leg ulcers. METHODS: This systematic review used a two-stage search approach. Electronic searches of major databases including MEDLINE were completed in October 2015, and then updated in July 2016. Additional studies were identified from citation checking. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Evaluation and summary of measurement properties of identified PROMs were done using standard and adapted study-relevant criteria. RESULTS: Ten studies with data for four generic PROMS and six condition-specific measures were identified. No generic PROM showed adequate content and criterion validity; however, the EuroQoL Five Dimensions (EQ-5D™), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12®) had good acceptability. In general, the EQ-5D™ showed poor responsiveness in patients with venous leg ulcers. Most condition-specific PROMs demonstrated poor criterion and construct validity. Overall, there was some evidence of internal consistency for the Venous Leg Ulcer Quality of Life (VLU-QoL) and the Sheffield Preference-based Venous Ulcer questionnaire (SPVU-5D). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory for the Venous Leg Ulcer Self-Efficacy Tool (VeLUSET). CONCLUSION: The NHP and VLU-QoL questionnaire seemed the most suitable PROMs for use by clinicians. However, a valid condition-specific PROM is still required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".